Case at a Glance
A woman who, as a small child, was hit by a vehicle while crossing the road in May 1997 and lost several toes filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal only in February 2014, seeking ₹20 lakh. The Tribunal rejected it as a ‘dead claim’. The Delhi High Court dismissed her appeal, holding that the real question was not limitation (since the Supreme Court has directed that claims not be dismissed on limitation while the 2019 amendment’s validity is under challenge) but whether a claim filed after 17 years, without satisfactory explanation, was a live and surviving claim. It held it was not, and that even if the delay were excused, negligence of the alleged offending vehicle was not proved even on preponderance of probabilities.
On 04.05.1997, around 12:30 pm, the claimant, then a young child, was crossing the road to reach a park when she was allegedly struck by a vehicle driven rashly and at high speed. She was taken to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital and stated that toes on both feet were amputated and that she suffered back injuries and more than six months of treatment. The claim petition was filed only on 19.02.2014, seeking ₹20,00,000 with 18% interest, including treatment costs, loss of schooling and her labourer father’s lost wages. On 04.08.2018 the MACT (North), Rohini, held it to be a ‘dead claim’ because of the unreasonable delay.
In appeal, the High Court noted the legislative history: the six-month limitation in Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was deleted with effect from 14.11.1994 and reintroduced by the 2019 amendment with effect from 01.04.2022. The validity of the reintroduced provision is under challenge, and by its order of 04.11.2025 in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ayiti Navaneetha the Supreme Court directed that tribunals not dismiss claims on limitation meanwhile. The claimant’s age at the accident was also disputed: she consistently said she was about 5, while her Aadhaar card and Class 10 marksheet put her date of birth as 09.09.1994, making her about 2 years and 7 months old.
The Key Question Before the Court
Even where no limitation period bars a motor accident claim, can a claim filed 17 years after the accident, with no satisfactory explanation, be treated as a live and surviving claim?
Not limitation, but whether the claim is still alive
Justice Anish Dayal framed the issue as one that “is not of limitation, but whether a claim filed after 17 years” was a live claim. Relying on M/s Purohit & Co. v. Khatoonbee, (2017) 02 SC CK 0126, under which a claim “can be considered to be genuine, so long as it is a live and surviving claim”, and on Meena Singhal v. Chaman Lal, (2026) 03 DEL CK 1956, the Court held that a claim must be brought within a reasonable time, and “the said period of 17 years is by no stretch of imagination a reasonable period of time”. Although counsel had not argued it, the Court considered whether minority could save the claim under Section 6 of the Limitation Act, noting that Section 8 caps the extension at three years after the disability ends. On the documentary date of birth she turned 18 in 2012 and the 2014 filing would be within that window; on her own account of being 5, she turned 18 in 2010 and it would not.
The Court held that even assuming timeliness, the claim failed on merits. A child of about two and a half could not reliably recall the vehicle number and specific facts; her parents, the natural guardians, were not examined and no explanation was given for their 17 years of inaction; the alleged eyewitness could not recall the vehicle number and admitted he did not see the impact; the driver denied the accident; and the insurance policy was not proved, the records having been destroyed. Citing Bangaru v. Theeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation, (1995) 04 MAD CK 0087 on the risks of stale claims, it held the claimant bore the burden of proving negligence under Section 166, and “there is no material on record, even on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities” to establish it.
What the Court Actually Held
- With the limitation question governed by the Supreme Court’s interim direction in ICICI Lombard v. Ayiti Navaneetha, the issue is whether the claim is a live and surviving claim brought within a reasonable time.
- A delay of 17 years without satisfactory explanation is not a reasonable period, and such a claim is not a live and surviving claim under Purohit & Co. v. Khatoonbee.
- Section 6 of the Limitation Act can extend time for a minor, but Section 8 limits the extension to three years after attaining majority; the disputed age made this uncertain here.
- In any event, negligence of the alleged offending vehicle was not proved even on preponderance of probabilities; the appeal is dismissed and no compensation is awarded.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Since the six-month limit was deleted in 1994, very old accident claims continue to reach tribunals; this ruling shows they can still fail as stale claims.
- It clarifies that the Supreme Court’s interim bar on dismissal for limitation does not oblige tribunals to entertain claims brought after unexplained, decades-long delay.
- It is a reminder that even the relaxed standard of preponderance of probabilities in MACT cases requires some reliable evidence of the accident and the vehicle.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants and Families
- File accident claims promptly; the longer the delay, the harder it is to prove the vehicle, the negligence and the insurance.
- If the injured person was a child, parents should act as guardians at the time rather than leave the claim for later.
- Preserve hospital records, FIR copies and witness details; their absence weakened this claim.
For Counsel
- Where a claim is old, explain the delay specifically in the petition and lead evidence on it; the Court treated an unexplained 17-year gap as fatal.
- For claims by persons injured as minors, plead Section 6 of the Limitation Act carefully, with consistent proof of date of birth, keeping in mind the three-year limit in Section 8.
- Examine the parents or guardians and any eyewitness who actually saw the impact.
Key Takeaways
- No limitation bar does not mean any delay is acceptable.
- A claim must be live and surviving, brought within a reasonable time.
- Minority can extend time only within the Section 8 Limitation Act cap.
- Without proof of negligence, even on preponderance of probabilities, the claim fails.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a time limit to file a motor accident claim in Delhi?
The six-month limit in Section 166(3) was reintroduced from 1 April 2022, but its validity is under challenge and the Supreme Court has directed that claims not be dismissed on limitation meanwhile. This judgment holds that a claim must still be live and brought within a reasonable time.
Can a person injured as a child file a claim after turning 18?
Section 6 of the Limitation Act gives a minor extra time, but Section 8 caps it at three years after the disability ends. In this case the claimant’s disputed age made the position uncertain, and the claim failed on merits anyway.
Why did the claim fail on merits?
Because there was no reliable evidence of the vehicle’s involvement and negligence: the claimant was very young at the time, her parents were not examined, the eyewitness did not see the impact, and the insurance policy could not be proved.
Conclusion
The judgment draws a line between limitation and staleness. Even in a period when tribunals cannot throw out claims as time-barred, a claim brought 17 years after an accident, with no explanation and little evidence, cannot be revived simply because no statute forbids it.
Practical takeaway: In old accident claims, the explanation for delay and the quality of evidence on the vehicle and negligence decide the case; build both before filing.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com